UNA Directors' Meeting - follow-up report, March 12, 2014

The UNA Board meeting had a couple of surprises last night.  Most notable of all was a need to add an in camera session to the meeting that had a collateral effect of displacing the parking pilot project motion to the end of the meeting following the in camera session.

We had a presentation from the Norma Rose Point School PAC playground-fundraising committee regarding their planned fully accessible three unit playground at the new school site.  The new school, on the site of the old U Hill Highschool, is a K-8 school. The school will be one of the most modern and progressive facilities operated by the Vancouver School Board when it is opened this coming fall.  However, under the provincial regulations there is no funding for the playground!  Hard to believe, but that is true.  Just the same, the VSB has come up with a $50,000 contributions, the 150 parents currently attached to the school have raised $20,000, a few corporate sponsors have given modest donations.  Last night the UNA made a contribution of $12,500.  The overall play ground budget for the three required school playgrounds is, however about $300,000.  The play ground committee had asked for a contribution of $100,000. This is what the UNA contributed to the skateboard park that graces the ground new the arena and parkade on Thunderbird Blvd. I am not certain why our contribution was capped at $12,500.  It would seem that we can do better given the importance of an accessible playground, our past history supporting playgrounds not in our UNA area, and the fact that many of our children make up the population of Norma Rose Point School.  I intend to bring this forward to the Board again with the intent to increase our funding contribution to this important and worthy project.

The other outcomes of the meeting include:

1. Passing the animal control bylaw committee's recommendation not to ban specific aggressive breeds of dogs, but to rely upon a generic definition of an aggressive dog.  The committee will be asked to consider the idea of listing specific breeds, but their sentiment seems to be that it is better to define an aggressive dog rather than banning specific breeds.  Having owned dogs in the past I can appreciate the committee's sentiment.  Yet, there are dogs that are bred specifically for violence and aggression and I wonder why we should not error on the side of precaution and both define a generically aggressive dog AND ban breeds with documented histories of violence and that are bred for violence.
2. Approving the appointment of new standing committee memberships and welcoming Andrew Parr and Carole Jolley to the Board as UBC's new appointees who replace Ian Burges and Lisa Colby.
3. The board also approved setting up a community survey working group to be headed up by Prod Laquin.  The working group will consist of a group of well know UBC researchers with specific expertise in community planning and development. The working group is to report by to the Board by June of this year.
4. Hampton Place resident and former journalist, Kathy Griffith, has been appointed to the newly formed Campus Resident Editorial Review Board. 
5. Following the in camera session of the board the "hardship" parking pilot project around the Old Barn Community Centre was approved unanimously by the Board.

The response to this question was deferred due to a matter that is not currently in the public domain.

• With respect to UNA on-street Parking: At the January 14, 2014 meeting of the UNA Board of Directors the following motion was passed: “Moved by Tanner Bokor, THAT the Board of Directors supports the recommendation of the Operations and Sustainability Standing Committee to extend the current restricted parking regulations in Hawthorn Place East from Monday-to-Saturday to Monday-to-Sunday with the same operating hours of 8 am to 6 pm.” I note that as of March 10, 2014 (two months later) the signage within Hawthorn Place along Logan Lane and Eagles Drive has not yet been changed to reflect the Board Decision of two months ago.  When will the decision of the board will be implemented?

 

UNA Directors' Meeting, March 11, 2014. Pre-meeting report

The UNA Board meeting package is online and available for viewing.   Prior to each meeting I review the package and jot down a series of questions that I have about the materials in the package.  Starting with this meeting I will place my questions online for public viewing.

Each meeting there are a series of reports from external agencies  (Electoral Area A Director, the AMS, Campus & Community Planning), our UNA standing committees, the UNA Executive Administrator, and then staff reports related to specific agenda action items.
  

Executive Director Report:

• With respect to UNA on-street Parking: At the January 14, 2014 meeting of the UNA Board of Directors the following motion was passed: “Moved by Tanner Bokor, THAT the Board of Directors supports the recommendation of the Operations and Sustainability Standing Committee to extend the current restricted parking regulations in Hawthorn Place East from Monday-to-Saturday to Monday-to-Sunday with the same operating hours of 8 am to 6 pm.” I note that as of March 10, 2014 (two months later) the signage within Hawthorn Place along Logan Lane and Eagles Drive has not yet been changed to reflect the Board Decision of two months ago.  When the decision of the board will be implemented?
• In this report the ongoing problems the UNA is facing in finding a childcare operator to run two UNA spaces is discussed.  One concern is that any UNA childcare operator would find them selves in direct competition with UBC.  The senior administrator for UBC Housing is quoted as saying any UNA operator would not be in competition with UBC. But is that really correct?  Wouldn’t in fact  a childcare provider operating a UNA facility actually be in competition with the UBC Housing daycare?  How else could that be understood?  Given that and our problems getting a response, perhaps it would be useful to either (1) invite UBC Housing to operate the daycare spaces under question or (2) drop the idea of providing daycare at this point in time.
• Can you provide a list of “stakeholders” who are members of the Outdoor Events Committee that will be charged with oversight of outdoor concerts and other major events that might have a negative impact upon UNA residents? 

 
Campus Planning Report

• Can you provide more details on the public hearings on UBC’s updated regional context statement? The hearings ended mid-February,  what were the inputs and how did the context statement change following the public hearing period?
• Can you report out on the traffic flow surveys that were being undertaken along 16th? There remain persistent community concerns related to the four-lane highway and problematic round-abouts.
  

 
Animal Bylaw Report

• Could you explain (1) why the committee felt that a definition of "aggressive dogs" is preferable to naming specific breeds, and (2) would it not strengthen public confidence to both define aggressive dogs and prohibit specific breeds with a documented aggressive and violent record?
  

 
Parking around the Old Barn Community Centre

• This item proposes a several month pilot project to offer 1 day parking passage to residents using the Old Barn Community Centre and how face some form of mobility hardship. 
• The report notes that the restricted 2 hour parking stalls for community centre use are filled to 95%+ occupancy during most weekdays.  Has there been any consideration of how to deal with the asserted misuse of these parking stalls?  If so, could you elaborate?
• Can you provide a factual summary of the number of residents who have complained about a lack of parking when they are attending an Old Barn event?  
• What is the duration of a typical program attended by  a mobility impaired parent with an infant or a mobility impaired senior who might wish/need to drive a car rather than bike or walk to the centre?  
• Can you provide a set of criteria that will clarify the definition of “hardship” that allows a resident access to a day parking permit?  
• Is there a detailed pilot project implementation plan available for review that includes the specific criteria for determining 'hardship', the methodology for evaluating whether or not the pilot project was successful or not, and the extent to which this pilot project will solve the identified problem: lack of short term parking for car drivers attending the Old Barn programs
  

 
Finance

• Could you remind us what security service we are paying for under item 20.
• What does the UBCPT other expenses estimate include
  

Is it Time for Spending Limts on UNA Board of Directors Elections?

 Many democratic systems place spending limits and candidates and have a requirement for candidates to publicly report  their campaign spending.  Is it time for the UNA to do the same? I think so.  Last year we tried to introduce a campaign spending limit on candidates but because we waited to long to begin the process we had to withdraw the proposal and revert to a status quo model.  There was no election (all candidates won their seats by acclimation) so ultimately there was no issue. 

I would like to suggest that the UN consider the follow sort of campaign spending limits:

Using the guiding principles of equity in accessing members, the UNA will apply the following campaign spending limits:

Campaigning spending is limited to $500 per candidate. 

Candidates may pool their campaign funds if they choose. However, the intention to pool funds must be declared in advance of a candidate’s first campaign expenditure irrespective of whether the candidate has submitted nomination papers. 

Gifts of professional services and products (including, but not limited to, art and design, legal advice, printing, paper, webpage design, etc.) must be included in the campaign limit at full market value.

Volunteer canvassers and campaign support time are not considered an election expense.

A full financial report of all campaign expenditures, including itemized expenses and a list of campaign contributors stating whether they contributed cash, goods or professional services must be submitted within 45 days of the AGM. There will be full public disclosure of these financial documents. 

What do you think?  Does it make sense to publicly disclose campaign spending and to place reasonable limits upon how much money candidates spend?